Chattisgarh High Court
Ramkumar Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 July, 2025
1
CRA No.432/2016
Digitally
signed by 2025:CGHC:34903
AMARDEEP
AMARDEEP CHOUBEY
CHOUBEY Date:
2025.07.24
10:47:19
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 432 of 2016
Ramkumar Patel S/o Motilal @ Motiya Patel Aged About 35 Years R/o
Village Ratkhandi, Chowki Belgahna, P.S. Kota, District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station A J K, Bilaspur, District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Vikash Pandey, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Ms. Isha Jajodiya, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Judgment on Board
22.07.2025
This criminal appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') is directed
against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 09/03/2016, passed by the learned Special Judge(Atrocity),
Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special Case No.15/2015, whereby the
appellant/accused has been convicted for the offence and sentenced
as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 354(A)(i) of the IPC R.I. for 3 years and fine of
Rs.1000/-, in default, additional
S.I. for 30 days
Under Section 456 of the IPC R.I. for 3 years and fine of
Rs.1000/-, in default, additional
S.I. for 30 days
Under Section 3(i)(xi) of SC/ST Act R.I. for 3 years and fine of
Rs.1000/-, in default, additional
S.I. for 30 days
Under Section 8 of the POCSO R.I. for 3 years and fine of
Act Rs.1000/-, in default, additional
S.I. for 30 days
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently
1. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the victim is aged about
15 years, resident of village Ratkhandi, P.S. Kota, district-
Bilaspur. On 05/03/2015, at about 6.30 p.m., when the victim was
preparing to cook food in her house at that time, the appellant
despite knowing the fact that the victim was a minor and a
member of the scheduled tribe; entered into her house with bad
intention; caught hold of her hand; hugged her to her chest; and
asked her to meet him in Chanabari on the pretext of going to the
nature's call. The victim refused and freed herself. After some
time, the appellant came again with bad intentions and started
taking the victim towards the courtyard by holding her hand.
Thereafter, the victim abused the appellant and freed herself from
the appellant and subsequently, she informed her family and
neighbors about the incident and lodged the FIR Belgahna Police
Station, Kota. During investigation, statement of victim was
recorded and on the basis of which, the appellant was arrested
Ex.P-9. spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-3. Caste certificate of
the victim exhibited vide Ex.P-4 as per the statement of the
applicant and on production of the victim, the caste certificate was
seized as per Exhibit P-4. After due investigation, charge-sheet
was filed.
2. The trial court has framed charges against the appellant for the
aforementioned offence and the appellant abjured his guilt and
pleaded innocence.
3. In order to establish the charge against the appellant, the
prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 12
documents. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. was also recorded in which he denied the material
appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and he has
been falsely implicated in the case. After appreciation of evidence
available on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the
accused/appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of
the judgment. Hence, this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial
Court has not properly appreciated the overall evidence available
on record for holding the appellant guilty. He further submits that
the statement of victim and other prosecution witnesses does not
inspire confidence and not reliable. The prosecution has not
been able to prove the age of the victim below 18 years and that
she was minor on the date of incident. He submits that the
learned trial Court erred in convicting the appellant only on the
basis of assumption and presumption and the finding given by the
learned trial Court against the appellant is perverse and contrary
to evidence on record. As such, the criminal appeal deserves to
be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and
submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt the learned trial Court after considering the
material available on record has rightly convicted and sentenced
the appellant, in which no interference is called for.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with utmost circumspection.
7. The first question arises for consideration in the present appeal is
whether the age of victim was below 18 years at the time of
incident.
8. Kumari Kalpana Khare (PW-1) is the Principal of the School,
where the victim was studying. In para 2 of his statement, she
stated that in the dakhil-kharij register, the names of the victim
and her parents are mentioned in the Sr. No.4019 and also the
date of birth of victim is mentioned as 01/01/2000 and the date of
admission of the victim in class 9 th is mentioned as 28/06/2014.
Seizure memo of dakhil kharij register is Ex.P-1/C. In cross-
examination, she admits that the date of birth of victim in dakhil
kharij register was made on the basis of certificate. However, she
has not mentioned the said fact in the register. Accordingly, in
view of the evidence of Kumari Kalpana Khare (PW-1) of school,
where the victim was studied and also on the basis of
Dakhil Kharij register, it is proved that the age of victim at the
time of incident was about 15 years, which is less than 18
years.
9. There is no dispute that appellant belongs to Patel caste which is
neither a Scheduled Caste nor a Scheduled Tribe. PW-4, father
of victim stated that the victim belongs to Gond caste, the same
fact is also recorded in the admission register Ex/P-1. Thus, it is
established beyond doubt that the appellant is not a member of
the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and the victim is a
member of the Scheduled Tribe.
10. Now, the next question is whether the appellant is committed the
said offence or not?
11. PW-2, victim stated in her evidence that she was alone in her
house at the time of the incident, then the appellant came to her
and asked about the whereabouts of her parents, but the victim
did not tell. Even after this, the appellant still standing near the
door, then the appellant asked her to turn on the light, when the
victim brought a torch to turn on the light, at that time, the
appellant caught the chest of victim and told her that she should
come to his house by making an excuses to her parents, to
which, the victim refused, then the appellant caught hold the hand
of the victim and dragged her out towards the garden, then the
victim freed her hand and ran away to the house of her
grandfather and aunt. Thereafter, she stated the whole incident to
her grand father.
12. In 164 statement, the victim stated that she knows the appellant,
who belongs to the Marar Patel caste. The appellant lives in her
village. she study in the ninth class. On 05.03.2015, at about 6.30
pm, the appellant came to her house and that time, she was
alone at home. He asked why the light is off, then, she brought a
torch and when she was showing the torch, the appellant caught
her from front side and said she looks beautiful. Moreover, the
appellant caught her hand and chest.
13. PW-4, father of the victim stated in his evidence that his
daughter/victim belongs to Gond caste. He had came to Bilaspur
from his village in March 2015 to work as a porter and on the date
of incident, he was in Bilaspur. His daughter told him that at
around 6 p.m. the appellant was caught hold of her hand and she
was crying. Thereafter, she took the victim and lodged an FIR
against the appellant. He further stated that the victim/daughter
studies in class 9th. He do not know her exact date of birth. His
daughter is 15 years.
14. The Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep alias Deenu v.
State (NCT of Delhi), 2012 (8) SCC 21 held as under:-
"22. In our considered opinion, the 'sterling witness'
should be of a very high quality and caliber whose
version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court
considering the version of such witness should be in a
position to accept it for its face value without any
hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the
status of the witness would be immaterial and what
would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement
made by such a witness. What would be more relevant
would be the consistency of the statement right from
the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when
the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately
before the Court. It should be natural and consistent
with the case of the prosecution qua the accused.
There should not be any prevarication in the version of
such a witness. The witness should be in a position to
withstand the cross-examination of any length and
howsoever strenuous it may be and under no
circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the
factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well
as, the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-
relation with each and everyone of other supporting
material such as the recoveries made, the weapons
used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific
evidence and the expert opinion. The said version
should consistently match with the version of every
other witness. It can even be stated that it should be
akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial
evidence where there should not be any missing link in
the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty
of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version
of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all
other similar such tests to be applied, it can be held
that such a witness can be called as a 'sterling witness'
whose version can be accepted by the Court without
any corroboration and based on which the guilty can
be punished. To be more recise, the version of the said
witness on the core spectrum of the crime should
remain intact while all other attendant materials,
namely, oral, documentary and material objects should
match the said version in material particulars in order
to enable the Court trying the offence to rely on the
core version to sieve the other supporting materials for
holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
15. Also, the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra
vs Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain, 1990 SCC 550 held as
under:-
"A prosecutrix of a sex-offence cannot be put on par
with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the
crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her
evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated
in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a
competent witness under Section 118 and her
evidence must receive the same weight as is attached
to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same
degree of care and caution must attach in the
evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured
complainant or witness and no more. What is
necessary is that the Court must be conscious of the
fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person
who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled
by her. If the Court keeps this in mind and feels
satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the
prosecutrix. There is no rule of law or practice
incorporated in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short
'Evidence Act') similar to illustration (b) to Section 114
which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some
reason the Court is hesitant to place implicit reliance
on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for
evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony
short of corroboration required in the case of an
accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend
assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must
necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of
each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full
understanding the Court is entitled to base a
conviction on her evidence unless the same is own to
be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the
circumstances appearing on the record of the case
discloses that the prosecutrix does not have a strong
motive to falsely involve the person charged, the Court
should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her
evidence."
16. In the matter of Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India & Ors.,
(2018) 17 SCC 291, in paras 14 and 20, it is observed as under:
"14. At the very outset, it has to be stated with
authority that the Pocso Act is a gender legislation.
This Act has been divided into various chapters and
parts therein. Chapter II of the Act titled "Sexual
Offences Against Children" is segregated into five
parts. Part A of the said Chapter contains two
sections, namely, Section 3 and Section 4. Section 3
defines the offence of "Penetrative Sexual Assault"
whereas Section 4 lays down the punishment for the
said offence. Likewise, Part B of the said Chapter
titled "Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault and
Punishment therefor" contains two sections, namely,
Section 5 and Section 6. The various subsections of
Section 5 copiously deal with various situations,
circumstances and categories of persons where the
offence of penetrative sexual assault would take the
character of the offence of aggravated penetrative
sexual assault. Section 5(k), in particular, while laying
emphasis on the mental stability of a child stipulates
that where an offender commits penetrative sexual
assault on a child, by taking advantage of the child's
mental or physical disability, it shall amount to an
offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault."
"20. Speaking about the child, a three Judge Bench in
M.C. Mehta v. State of T.N. (1996) 6 SCC 756 "1. ...
"child is the father of man". To enable fathering of a
valiant and vibrant man, the child must be groomed
well in the formative years of his life. He must receive
education, acquire knowledge of man and materials
and blossom in such an atmosphere that on reaching
age, he is found to be a man with a mission, a man
who matters so far as the society is concerned."
17. The Supreme Court in the matter of Nawabuddin v. State of
Uttarakhand (CRIMINAL APPEAL No.144 of 2022), decided on
8.2.2022 has held as under:-
"10. Keeping in mind the aforesaid objects and to
achieve what has been provided under Article 15 and
39 of the Constitution to protect children from the
offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment, the
POCSO Act, 2012 has been enacted. Any act of
sexual assault or sexual harassment to the children
should be viewed very seriously and all such offences
of sexual assault, sexual harassment on the children
have to be dealt with in a stringent manner and no
leniency should be shown to a person who has
committed the offence under the POCSO Act. By
awarding a suitable punishment commensurate with
the act of sexual assault, sexual harassment, a
message must be conveyed to the society at large
that, if anybody commits any offence under the
POCSO Act of sexual assault, sexual harassment or
use of children for pornographic purposes they shall
be punished suitably and no leniency shall be shown
to them. Cases of sexual assault or sexual
harassment on the children are instances of perverse
lust for sex where even innocent children are not
spared in pursuit of such debased sexual pleasure.
Children are precious human resources of our
country; they are the country's future. The hope of
tomorrow rests on them. But unfortunately, in our
country, a girl child is in a very vulnerable position.
There are different modes of her exploitation,
including sexual assault and/or sexual abuse. In our
view, exploitation of children in such a manner is a
crime against humanity and the society. Therefore, the
children and more particularly the girl child deserve full
protection and need greater care and protection
whether in the urban or rural areas. As observed and
held by this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v.
Om Prakash, (2002) 5 SCC 745, children need
special care and protection and, in such cases,
responsibility on the shoulders of the Courts is more
onerous so as to provide proper legal protection to
these children. In the case of Nipun Saxena v. Union
of India, (2019) 2 SCC 703, it is observed by this
Court that a minor who is subjected to sexual abuse
needs to be protected even more than a major victim
because a major victim being an adult may still be
able to withstand the social ostracization and mental
harassment meted out by society, but a minor victim
will find it difficult to do so. Most crimes against minor
victims are not even reported as very often, the
perpetrator of the crime is a member of the family of
the victim or a close friend. Therefore, the child needs
extra protection. Therefore, no leniency can be shown
to an accused who has committed the offences under
the POCSO Act, 2012 and particularly when the same
is proved by adequate evidence before a court of law."
18. The Supreme court in the matter of State of UP v. Sonu
Kushwaha, (2023) 7 SCC 475 has held as under :
"12. The POCSO Act was enacted to provide more
stringent punishments for the offences of child abuse
of various kinds and that is why minimum
punishments have been prescribed in Sections 4, 6, 8
and 10 of the POCSO Act for various categories of
sexual assaults on children. Hence, Section 6,on its
plain language, leaves no discretion to the Court and
there is no option but to impose the minimum
sentence as done by the Trial Court. When a penal
provision uses the phraseology "shall not be less
than....", the Courts cannot do offence to the Section
and impose a lesser sentence. The Courts are
powerless to do that unless there is a specific
statutory provision enabling the Court to impose a
lesser sentence. However, we find no such provision
in the POCSO Act. Therefore, notwithstanding the
fact that the respondent may have moved ahead in
life after undergoing the sentence as modified by the
High Court, there is no question of showing any
leniency to him. Apart from the fact that the law
provides for a minimum sentence, the crime
committed by the respondent is very gruesome which
calls for very stringent punishment. The impact of the
obnoxious act on the mind of the victim/child will be
lifelong. The impact is bound to adversely affect the
healthy growth of the victim. There is no dispute that
the age of the victim was less than twelve years at the
time of the incident. Therefore, we have no option but
to set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court
and restore the judgment of the Trial Court."
19. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of above
principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme
Court, it is quite vivid that from the statement of victim (PW-2)
that the appellant who is from her village itself, came to her house
in the evening, when she was alone and asked her about her
parents as well as to turn on the light and when the victim
showing the torch, the appellant caught hold her hand; touched
her chest; and hugged her. Thereafter, the appellant insisted her
to come his house by making excuses to her parents. And again,
the appellant caught hold the hands of victim and dragged her
towards courtyard then she freed herself and ran away to the
house of her grandfather and narrated the whole incident.
20. Also looking to the statement of PW-1 Principal of the school that
in the dakhil kharij register, the date of birth of the victim is
mentioned as 01/01/2000 and was recorded on the basis of
certificate i.e. below the age of 18 years. Apart from that,
according to the caste certificate, the victim belongs to the Gond
caste, which comes under Scheduled Tribe, whereas the
appellant belongs to Patel caste, which neither comes under
Scheduled Tribe nor under Scheduled Caste.
21. In the result, taking into consideration the evidence of victim (PW-
2), evidence of PW-1 and Caste certificate, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the appellant has committed the said
offence with the victim, who belongs to scheduled tribe and below
the age of 18 yers. Thus, the trial Court has rightly convicted the
appellant for the aforesaid offence. The conviction and sentence
as awarded by the trial court to the appellant is hereby upheld.
22. The present criminal appeal lacks merit and is accordingly
dismissed. Appellant is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled and
sureties discharged. He shall surrender forthwith before the
concerned trial Court forthwith serving remaining sentence as
awarded by the trial Court, failing which he shall be taken into
custody by the trial Court.
23. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the
concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing
the jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him
that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this
Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court
with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the
Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.
Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru)
Judge
Gowri/Amardeep
